Church Instructs Leaders On Same Sex Marriage

[theplains]

There has always been a need to reinforce teachings to keep Church members -- even ostensibly active and dedicated ones from drifting toward apostasy in their beliefs.

 

If any teachings printed in church manuals/magazines or spoken of at General

Conference are false, that would in itself cause hearers who believe to drift toward

apostasy.  And if you 'reinforce' these false teachings throughout time, apostasy

becomes widespread.

 

Regards,

Jim

[california boy]

Christ to the woman taken in adultery didn't say go they way and sin some more, but go they way and sin no more.

 

Homosexuality denies Gods' plan for his children. To come to earth, gain a body, obey the Gospel, produce children ourselves, then return to God in glory. Whatever homosexuals other fine qualities they can not produce children. That is exclusively to heterosexuals. Homosexuality(The acts not the temptation) are a sin. I really don't foresee anytime when such will not be a sin.

 

Use of the interracial argument is really a nonstarter. Black, as well as white, members of the Church have always been allowed to marry and produce children whom are also good members of the Church. No such arrangement is possible with our homosexual members.

 

Homosexuals do come to earth to gain a body

Homosexuals can obey the gospel

Homosexuals whether married or not can not produce children.  But homosexuals can not produce children when they are celibate either.  So there is absolutely no difference in following the plan of salvation whether they marry or whether they live celibate lives.  Still no children.

 

So if you feel that bearing children is an essential part of the plan of salvation for all God's children, just what do you suggest a homosexual to do to fulfill that part of the plan of salvation??  For straight couples, this can be achieved by adoption.  Homosexual couples have the same option.  I don't think you are suggesting that a celibate gay member living by himself should adopt a child so that he can fulfill the plan of salvation are you?

 

I am really interested in how you feel a gay member should fulfill the plan of salvation you have outlined.

[Scott Lloyd]

If any teachings printed in church manuals/magazines or spoken of at General

Conference are false, that would in itself cause hearers who believe to drift toward

apostasy.  And if you 'reinforce' these false teachings throughout time, apostasy

becomes widespread.

 

Regards,

Jim

Don't know what you are getting at here. Ordinarily, false doctrine would not be taught in general conference and in Church manuals or magazines.

[Kenngo1969]

Hint: While I cannot speak for Jim, I suspect that what he considers to be false doctrine and what you consider to be false doctrine might differ somewhat.

[thesometimesaint]

Homosexuals do come to earth to gain a body

Homosexuals can obey the gospel

Homosexuals whether married or not can not produce children.  But homosexuals can not produce children when they are celibate either.  So there is absolutely no difference in following the plan of salvation whether they marry or whether they live celibate lives.  Still no children.

 

So if you feel that bearing children is an essential part of the plan of salvation for all God's children, just what do you suggest a homosexual to do to fulfill that part of the plan of salvation??  For straight couples, this can be achieved by adoption.  Homosexual couples have the same option.  I don't think you are suggesting that a celibate gay member living by himself should adopt a child so that he can fulfill the plan of salvation are you?

 

I am really interested in how you feel a gay member should fulfill the plan of salvation you have outlined.

 

I have no objection to homosexuals adopting children of about 8 years old. There are more than enough of those for everyone regardless of sexual orientation to adopt.

 

My wife and I semi-adopted our grandnephew. We're both well past the age of having any more children of our own. We are his parents in all but the legal sense of the word. His mother more than once offered us the chance to legally adopt him. We refused not only for his sake, but hers as well. We taught him to love, respect, and be a part of her life as much as possible, even if he couldn't live with her. We have been well blessed by having him a part of ours.

[california boy]

I have no objection to homosexuals adopting children of about 8 years old. There are more than enough of those for everyone regardless of sexual orientation to adopt.

 

My wife and I semi-adopted our grandnephew. We're both well past the age of having any more children of our own. We are his parents in all but the legal sense of the word. His mother more than once offered us the chance to legally adopt him. We refused not only for his sake, but hers as well. We taught him to love, respect, and be a part of her life as much as possible, even if he couldn't live with her. We have been well blessed by having him a part of ours.

There are many different kinds of families as you so clearly illustrate.  I am sure your grandnephew is a blessing to you as well as his relationship with you is a tremendous blessing for him.

 

So what part of the plan of salvation do you feel a gay couple can not be a part of?  I am still curious.  And if having children is a part of that plan, isn't telling celibate gay members actually counter to the plan of salvation?

[thesometimesaint]

There are many different kinds of families as you so clearly illustrate.  I am sure your grandnephew is a blessing to you as well as his relationship with you is a tremendous blessing for him.

 

So what part of the plan of salvation do you feel a gay couple can not be a part of?  I am still curious.  And if having children is a part of that plan, isn't telling celibate gay members actually counter to the plan of salvation?

 

Part of Gods plan is to have children in this life. Homosexuals can not by definition reproduce. My wife and I are not homosexuals and we can not reproduce now either. But hopefully will be able to in the next. There is no such available to homosexual couples.

[Daniel2]

Part of Gods plan is to have children in this life. Homosexuals can not by definition reproduce. My wife and I are not homosexuals and we can not reproduce now either. But hopefully will be able to in the next. There is no such available to homosexual couples.

I'm curious: when modern medicine advances to the point that gay couples will be able to reproduce between the two of them (see: http://www.gizmag.com/possibility-of-genetic-children-from-same-sex-couples/17228/), will that alter your view? For example, when two women can both provide a gamete, carry a child, and give birth to their child?

Daniel

[california boy]

Part of Gods plan is to have children in this life. Homosexuals can not by definition reproduce. My wife and I are not homosexuals and we can not reproduce now either. But hopefully will be able to in the next. There is no such available to homosexual couples.

 So just how does celibate gay man have children in this life as part of the plan of salvation.  Will he be able to have chldren in the next life, or does he have to be made straight first?

[Scott Lloyd]

Hint: While I cannot speak for Jim, I suspect that what he considers to be false doctrine and what you consider to be false doctrine might differ somewhat.

Yes, a distinct possibility. 

[Mystery Meat]

So just how does celibate gay man have children in this life as part of the plan of salvation.  Will he be able to have chldren in the next life, or does he have to be made straight first?

He doesn't. And yes.

[california boy]

He doesn't. And yes.

So if part of Gods plan is to have children in this life, then the church policy of commanding gays to be celibate in this life is actually against the plan of God.

 

And is it doctrine that gays will be made straight in the next life?  Or is it doctrine that gays will have children in the next life? What if a gay person has no interest in being straight in the next life?  What if the last thing a gay person wants is to be in a relationship with a woman for eternity?

[Mystery Meat]

So if part of Gods plan is to have children in this life, then the church policy of commanding gays to be celibate in this life is actually against the plan of God.

 

And is it doctrine that gays will be made straight in the next life?  Or is it doctrine that gays will have children in the next life? What if a gay person has no interest in being straight in the next life?  What if the last thing a gay person wants is to be in a relationship with a woman for eternity?

If you want what is only my opinion, i think the Lord will not force anything upon anyone. So if you dont want a female eternal companion you can so chose. But that doesn't mean you will get a male companion. You will be single, and perhaps asexual. I think homosexuality is a symptom of the fall and will be fixed in the next life, whether we want it to or not. IOW, you dont have to be married eternally, but you will then be single and without eternal increase. There wont be gay relationships in the next life cuz noone will be gay.

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm curious: when modern medicine advances to the point that gay couples will be able to reproduce between the two of them (see: http://www.gizmag.com/possibility-of-genetic-children-from-same-sex-couples/17228/), will that alter your view? For example, when two women can both provide a gamete, carry a child, and give birth to their child?

Daniel

And this is one of the reasons that gay marriage concerns me from a scientific angle.  Do people really believe that such technology will only have minimal changes on our species?

 

Edit: Perhaps that response was a bit brusque.  I have fears that modifying the way our species propogates in such a significant manner will have huge affects, especially on those who find out they don't have a mommy and daddy.

[Calm]

Malachi 4 comes to mind after reading your post, Zeta.

I can see a necessity to rewrite what heritage and family means if technology ever gets to the point of creating humans outside of the context they carry now...which potentially could have a huge impact on self identification and the need to belong.

[BCSpace]

I wonder whether, in 50-100 years members will look back on statements like the one you've shared in the same way we do today to statements like these (emphasis mine). This statement was in 1947. Living memory for some of our board's participants

 

I predict we won't be looking back on this issue in such a fashion.

 

Homosexuality will remain sin 50 to 100 years from now in the LDS Church.

[BlueDreams]

I mean: even though the current LDS apostles clearly are not open to considering any religious approval or endorsement of any type of non-sinful same-sex relationships, the fact that they feel the need to reitterate and re-enforce that position to local ecclesiastical leaders would seems to match my perception that there is an increasing number of younger Latter-day Saints (and local leaders) who may be open to accepting and even blessing same-sex unions. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need to reinforce boundaries and tighten the reigns, so to speak. And that is progress, in my mind.

As with interracial relationships, full LDS acceptance of same-sex unions will not come until enough of both leaders and members of a certain generation pass on, and future generations will view the leadership's statements in 2014 as being "reflective of the attitudes of a different time."

Well, i'm part of that younger generation....frankly I'm not seeing it, especially among those who are active in the faith (the stats at the end of this lend credence to that). My cuz and I, for example. Just had a conversation about SSM in UT and SSM in general the other day. We're a demo that would have the higher likelihood for supporting SSM (mid 20's, thinkers (she loves philosophy, I love understanding people), highly educated, female, push against authority figures, feminists, etc.). We discussed philosophical underpinnings, the legality of what happened (she's in law school), our general moderate perspective, etc. We don't do light conversations . But the conversation about SSM in the church was short and simple: not gonna happen.

  

The reminders, to me aren't to tighten the reigns, IMO, but part of the scriptural call to remember. The stance isn't changing and isn't about to. And that's their point. Personally my only prediction is that it's only going to get more difficult to teach my (future) children the principles and ethos that I find true when the world runs quite counter-actively to them. It's depressing to know very well that I'll be on the "wrong side of history," per se. That there will be a good chunk of the population that will probably see my kids or me or grandkids as bigoted. But it also doesn't change my position. The only thing that's changed is wanting to find a balance in teaching my children to respect people and their decisions, while maintaining our own perspective separate from the world-view. 

 

What has changed is openness and less reactive tendencies when homosexuality is discussed with a younger audience that an old one. I once asked my co-workers if they would attend their (hypothetical) child's marriage to their same sex partner. I can't remember one of them saying no, though a number mentioned probably feeling a little uncomfortable and wanting varying degrees of participation. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

The direct reference to "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" in this published statement should put to rest the strange notion that nothing in the proclamation forbids same-sex marriage. Clearly, in the minds of the First Presidency and the apostles, it does just that.

President Hinckley also made it clear in a Conference talk four years later that if we even entertain supporting same sex marriage, we would have to answer to God for it.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

So if part of Gods plan is to have children in this life, then the church policy of commanding gays to be celibate in this life is actually against the plan of God.

 

And is it doctrine that gays will be made straight in the next life?  Or is it doctrine that gays will have children in the next life? What if a gay person has no interest in being straight in the next life?  What if the last thing a gay person wants is to be in a relationship with a woman for eternity?

 

Negative.  Acting out on gay thoughts IS against the plan of God.  Period.

 

The Proclamation states that the way that children are brought into this life is divinely appointed.  Meaning God appointed it.  Humans cannot change that.

 

The church policy saying that gays are to be celibate is NOT against the plan of God.  Same goes for heterosexual people that have not entered into the contract of marriage.  But remember, the way that children are to come into this world is DIVINELY appointed.  Nor you, nor me, nor anybody else here can change that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm curious: when modern medicine advances to the point that gay couples will be able to reproduce between the two of them (see: http://www.gizmag.com/possibility-of-genetic-children-from-same-sex-couples/17228/), will that alter your view? For example, when two women can both provide a gamete, carry a child, and give birth to their child?

Daniel

What TSS said is that homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally or by themselves. It will always take a lab.

[Calm]

President Hinckley also made it clear in a Conference talk four years later that if we even entertain supporting same sex marriage, we would have to answer to God for it.

Reference please.

You haven't been around for awhile, good to see/read you again.

[Daniel2]

homosexuals cannot produce naturally or by themselves. It will always take a lab.

I understand that is the case here on earth, both for same-sex couples and for many opposite-sex infertile couples.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to my point, though. According to LDS belief, there are many limitations of mortality that will not exist in the eternities. It is common belief that many infertile couples will be able to beget spirit children in the afterlife, even though they also "always need a lab" to have children throughout the entire duration of their earthy existence.

And, as I pointed out, those who believe in a virgin birth believe that God has "begotten" a son through non-"natural" processes--through divine procreative powers that are beyond the scope of mortal understanding.

Though I think many Latter-day Saints presume that there is some sort of heavenly sexual procreative process that occurs between diefied male and female reproductive parts (as they understandably would, according to typical heteronormative presumptions), LDS cannon does not specify the actual process by which "intelligences" are organized into "spirit children."

Given all of the above, and if it is true that "with God, all things are possible," I don't see it being any less plausible that same-sex couples could organize intelligences into spirits. Of course, I expect your mileage will differ.

D

[thesometimesaint]

I understand that is the case here on earth, both for same-sex couples and for many opposite-sex infertile couples.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to my point, though. According to LDS belief, there are many limitations of mortality that will not exist in the eternities. It is common belief that many infertile couples will be able to beget spirit children in the afterlife, even though they also "always need a lab" to have children throughout the entire duration of their earthy existence.

And, as I pointed out, those who believe in a virgin birth believe that God has "begotten" a son through non-"natural" processes--through divine procreative powers that are beyond the scope of mortal understanding.

Though I think many Latter-day Saints presume that there is some sort of heavenly sexual procreative process that occurs between diefied male and female reproductive parts (as they understandably would, according to typical heteronormative presumptions), LDS cannon does not specify the actual process by which "intelligences" are organized into "spirit children."

Given all of the above, and if it is true that "with God, all things are possible," I don't see it being any less plausible that same-sex couples could organize intelligences into spirits. Of course, I expect your mileage will differ.

D

 

True.

 

True.

 

It was a natural process. We just don't know the exact process used. We've had test tube babies for a while now, and they are entirely natural. They even have children of their own. I'm not saying that is how God did it. But it is one possibility, and it works whether the woman is a virgin or not. Though it could be argued that half the fun of getting pregnant is how it is done.

 

Seeing that God made both males and females there must have been some reason for that. Otherwise why not just go with asexual reproduction?

[Daniel2]

Seeing that God made both males and females there must have been some reason for that. Otherwise why not just go with asexual reproduction?

A good question. I understand and believe there are several theories identifying evolutionary advantages and benefits as to why many species of animals developed sexual reproduction (i.e. genetic diversity).

If one presumes that "God made both males and females, there must have been some reason for that," then one could equally assume that since "God made both heterosexuals and homosexuals, there must have been some reason for that. Otherwise, why do homosexuals exist?"

In similar fashion, I believe there are several theories identifying evolutionary advantages and benefits as to why homosexuality manifests in many species of animals (i.e. kin selection).

Additionally, I think one could make the case that "celestial procreation" is not an exact mirror of "mortal procreation"--not subject to the same genetic, evolutionary limitations (i.e. the process of "organizing intelligences into spirit children" would probably be different than the mortal procreative process.... for starters, "celestial bodies" do not have blood flowing through their veins, do not need physical sustenance, are presumably not subject to genetic mutations, etc).

Daniel2

[Mystery Meat]

God didn't make homosexuals, the fall did.